HINELINE
v.
MOLYNEAUX, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
HINELINE
MOLYNEAUX, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
73 F.2d 925
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1934)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
A careful analysis of the situation in this application for a writ of mandamus directed to Judge Molyneaux, of the District of Minnesota, convinces that the subject-matter of this controversy may bo completely covered through an appeal, and that there are no particular circumstances which require use of this extraordinary writ of mandamus to preserve the rights of the parties completely. In this situation, and without examination of the merits of the controversy, it ie our duty to deny the application for the writ. Ex parte Riddle, 255 U. S. 450, 41 S. Ct. 370, 65 L. Ed. 725; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L. Ed. 762; Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. et al. v. Molyneaux (C. C. A.) 70 F.(2d) 545.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armour & Co. v. Miller, 91 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1937)
Authorities Cited
- McCLELLAN v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1910)
- Ex parte Riddle, 255 U.S. 450 (U.S. 1921)
- Minn. & Ontario Paper Co. v. Molyneaux, 70 F.2d 545 (8th Cir. 1934)